For many businesses, their trust deed, company register and other governing documents were prepared years ago and have spent much of the time since then sitting in a filing cabinet, inbox or accountant’s file.

That is, until someone asks for them.

Under Australia’s expanded anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing (AML/CTF) regime, from 1 July 2026, lawyers, accountants, real estate professionals and other regulated businesses that provide certain services must establish who owns, controls and acts for an entity or trust.

In practice, that means incomplete or inconsistent governing documents can hold up a transaction when timing matters most.

Common problems we see

Older business and trust structures can present a range of issues, including:

• the original trust deed has been lost and only an unsigned or incomplete copy can be located;
• historical deeds of variation, change of trustee or change of appointor are missing, unsigned or incorrectly drafted;
• the trust deed says one thing, but the parties have been operating on a different understanding;
• company records maintained internally do not correspond with the information recorded by ASIC;
• historical changes to directors, shareholders or shareholdings have not been properly documented or lodged;
• documents have been signed incorrectly or corporate resolutions cannot be located; or
• a bank, accountant, lawyer or other institution is asking questions about the structure which cannot readily be answered from the documents available.

These problems may have existed unnoticed for years. They tend to emerge at the least convenient time, such as when financing is required, a property or business asset is being acquired or sold, a business transaction is underway or another organisation needs to complete its customer due diligence.

Check before somebody else does

If your business operates through a company or trust, it is worth checking your records and asking the following questions:

For Trusts:-

• Do we have the original signed trust deed?
• Do we have every subsequent variation and change of trustee or appointor?
• Do the documents actually reflect the people currently controlling the trust?

Companies:-

• Do our internal company records match the ASIC register?
• Are the correct directors and shareholders recorded?
• Do the issued shares and share classes match the company’s records?
• Can we locate the documents supporting historical changes?

And more generally:-

• Could we clearly explain our current ownership and control structure if our bank, solicitor or accountant asked tomorrow?
• Do we know where the original documents are kept?

Finding a problem does not mean it cannot be fixed

Lost documents, historical inconsistencies and incorrect corporate records are not uncommon. But the longer they remain unresolved, the more difficult they can be to address, particularly when there is an urgent transaction waiting in the background.

If you have discovered that your trust deed is missing, your corporate records do not line up or you have been asked by a bank or professional adviser to produce documents that you cannot locate, O’Sullivan Sneddon Law can review the history of your structure, identify the issue and advise on the appropriate steps to put your records back in order.

The best time to deal with an historical problem is usually before it becomes someone else’s due diligence problem.

Corporate Structuring / Asset Protection Advice

As more of life moves online, service of court documents is moving with it. In the right circumstances, the Court can permit TikTok and other social media platforms as appropriate methods to use for substituted service.

When court proceedings are commenced against an individual, the claim documents need to be personally served. That means, arranging for the documents to be hand delivered directly to the individual.

But what happens when the person cannot be found, is constantly travelling, or simply refuses to answer the door?

In Queensland, the Court may order substituted service, allowing court documents to be served by an alternative method. Generally, the plaintiff will need to establish that:

1. personal service is impracticable; and
2. the proposed alternative method is likely to bring the documents to the person’s attention.

That second requirement is where a person’s digital footprint can become surprisingly important.

If a person maintains an active and identifiable online presence, their social media activity may provide evidence that documents sent to that account are likely to come to their attention. This means, TikTok, Facebook, LinkedIn or some other similar method can be an acceptable method for substituted service.

However, sending court documents through social media does not, by itself, make service valid.

Where personal service cannot reasonably be achieved, an application for substituted service may be necessary. The Court will consider the circumstances of the particular case, including the attempts made to personally serve the person, before permitting orders for substituted service.

So, while serving court documents by TikTok might sound like something out of the ordinary, it has been considered by the Court to be an acceptable method for alternative service.

At O’Sullivan Sneddon Law, we assist clients with practical strategies for service, including applications for substituted service where appropriate. Contact the experienced team at O’Sullivan Sneddon Law today for assistance.

Dispute Resolution

You shouldn’t need to rely on WeChat messages to help piece together a claim for almost $1 million in a property dispute. But in Ou v Wang [2026] QSC 168, the messages were a key part of the evidentiary puzzle in the dispute involving a St Lucia property, a Deed of Gift, and communications conducted largely over WeChat.

The seller said the arrangement was a property sale for $1.5 million. The transaction, however, was documented as a Deed of Gift and the property was transferred before the full purchase price was paid. The seller received about $600,000 from the buyer and her parents. When he later sought payment of the balance, the buyer argued that the property had been gifted, not sold, and that the amounts paid were loan monies, not part payment of the purchase price.

The Court considered whether the WeChat messages and surrounding conduct gave rise to a binding contract for the sale of the property. It found they did not. Important matters were left unresolved, including aspects of the payment arrangements and the fact that the property was transferred to a company rather than to the buyer personally.

That was not the end of the matter. The Court then looked closely at the WeChat messages, the assurances given, the payments made and the parties’ conduct after the transfer. It found that the seller had relied on assurances that he would be paid the $1.5 million purchase price, even though the documents described the transfer as a gift.

The Court:

• awarded the seller equitable compensation of $900,346 plus interest; and
• found that the purported gift was a sham arrangement intended to conceal the real transaction and reduce the stamp duty payable.

WeChat messages may be useful evidence, but they are not a substitute for a properly drafted contract, clear payment terms and settlement mechanics that protect the parties before title changes hands.

Although courts may look beyond the label on a document, there is real risk and cost associated with trying to structure a transaction in a way that does not reflect the actual intended agreement. This is especially important in related-party arrangements, family transactions and deals between people who know each other, where parties may be tempted to rely on trust, informal messages or documents that do not tell the whole story.

Whether you are buying, selling, transferring property between family members or related parties, or agreeing to payment arrangements outside a standard settlement, reach out to a member of our experienced property team before entering into an agreement or allowing a property to change hands.

Property Law and Conveyancing

“We’re friends. We don’t need a contract.”  It’s an understandable instinct. When trust is strong, paperwork can feel unnecessary, even a bit insulting to suggest.

A friend lends another friend money. Parents help a child buy a home. Two mates start a business together. Everyone trusts everyone, so writing it down feels like overkill.

But trust and clarity aren’t the same thing. Most disputes we see do not come from bad faith. They come from people remembering conversations differently, making assumptions, or never actually discussing the details in the first place.

A written agreement is not about expecting things to go wrong. It is about making sure everyone starts from the same page.

The loan that meant two different things – A family member helps someone buy a property or start a business. One side sees it as a loan. The other sees it as a gift. Years later, someone asks for the money back, and both genuinely believe they’re right. A simple agreement at the outset would have settled it.

The business partnership between friends – Two friends start a business. One puts in capital, the other puts in time and expertise. Early on, nobody thinks about ownership splits, decision-making, or what happens if someone wants out. Those questions get asked eventually, usually much later than they should have been.

The promise that was never written down – A parent tells family members how they intend to leave property or assets. Everyone forms expectations based on those conversations. If it is never formally documented, the legal paperwork can later tell a very different story.

Putting an arrangement in writing does not signal a lack of trust. Often it is the opposite. It shows respect for the relationship and a genuine effort to avoid misunderstandings down the track.

At O’Sullivan Sneddon Lawyers, we see disputes like these regularly, and almost always, the issue is not what was said. It is what each person thought was meant.

So next time someone tells you a handshake is enough: sometimes the most important contract you will ever sign is not with a stranger. It is with someone you trust.

A workplace serious injury or fatality is a tragedy for everyone involved. It can also move quickly from incident response to criminal investigation, with the Work Health and Safety Prosecutor assessing whether a business, director or officer should face charges.

At O’Sullivan Sneddon Law, we act for Queensland employers, directors and officers in WHS investigations and prosecutions, including matters involving grievous bodily harm and fatalities.

The pressure starts early

After a serious incident, regulators can move fast. Inspectors have statutory powers to enter workplaces, make inquiries and gather evidence under Queensland safety legislation.

That may include:

• attending or securing the incident scene
• requiring information and documents
• taking photographs, measurements and other evidence
• asking questions of workers, managers and officers
• issuing improvement, prohibition or other compliance notices.

If the matter proceeds beyond regulatory notices, prosecution can follow under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Qld) and related safety legislation. In Queensland, WHS prosecutions are ordinarily conducted by the Work Health and Safety Prosecutor, and proceedings may involve both a company and individual directors and officers.

Why early advice matters

The first hours and days matter. What is said, produced, preserved and documented during the investigation phase can materially affect the defence strategy and the outcome.

We help Queensland employers:

• respond to WHSQ attendance, notices and requests
• prepare for interviews and evidence-gathering steps
• identify and preserve available defences, including due diligence and reasonable practicability arguments
• engage with prosecutors and defend charges where required
• manage related processes, including coronial involvement.

Our focus is practical: reduce risk, protect privilege, keep the business operating where possible, and build the strongest available response from day one.

We have secured positive outcomes in WHS prosecutions, including having complaints withdrawn, reducing company exposure, and achieving favourable sentencing results.

For Queensland employers: act early

If your workplace is contacted by WHSQ or the WHS Prosecutor after a serious incident, get advice before the investigation gathers pace. Early, specialist guidance can make the difference between reacting under pressure and responding strategically.

We provide practical, strategic and commercially focused representation to protect your people, your operations and your future.

Workplace Health and Safety

At O’Sullivan Sneddon Law, our lawyers have decades of experience running litigation and resolving complex legal disputes. We appear in State and Federal Courts, Tribunals and Commissions, and represent clients in mediations, arbitrations and settlement negotiations.

The best litigants usually have one thing in common: they have a clear strategy, and they keep asking the right questions as the dispute unfolds.

How strong is my case?

Ask your lawyer for a frank assessment of your case — the strengths, the weaknesses, and the parts you may not want to hear. Ask them to revisit that advice as the matter develops. Question assumptions. Be careful about relying on AI for legal strategy. Your lawyer’s advice should guide your decisions at each stage.

What does litigation really cost?

The legal bill is only part of the picture. There may also be barristers’ fees, expert fees, court fees, discovery and document management costs, management time, preparation for conferences and hearings, travel and accommodation — and, if you lose, the risk of paying a significant portion of the other side’s costs.

Litigation can take months or years. You may need to find documents, prepare statements, attend conferences, give evidence, and keep revisiting events you would rather move on from. For a business owner or senior executive, the disruption can be significant.

What about the human cost?

Litigation is stressful. Even with a strong case, you may spend months waiting for the other side’s next move. It is easy to become angry about what you see as unfair conduct, and fixated on proving you are right. That is understandable, but it can also cloud judgment. Keep coming back to what is actually in your best interests.

Don’t litigate for revenge

Anger rarely makes for good litigation strategy. Being right does not always mean that judgment at trial is the best commercial outcome. You might spend $300,000 proving you are entitled to $200,000. You might win after three years when a sensible settlement could have been reached in three months.

Choose your lawyer carefully

Does your lawyer enjoy litigation — or understand it? There is a real difference. Some lawyers love the contest: interlocutory fights, applications to strike out, trials, aggressive correspondence, short deadlines, security for costs applications and summary judgment arguments. Those skills can be invaluable when a case genuinely needs to be fought. But enthusiasm for the fight should never overtake what is in the client’s best interests.

The best litigation lawyer is not necessarily the one who wants the biggest fight. It is the one who knows when to fight, when to negotiate, and when to settle.

Do your own research

Do not simply choose the lawyer with the biggest advertisement or the highest profile. Ask how often they settle matters compared with taking them to trial. Ask about their approach to mediation, and whether they consider commercial consequences as carefully as legal merits.

It may also be worth looking at their litigation history. Publicly available court databases can give some insight into the types of matters a lawyer or firm has run, and the outcomes. Adverse judgments or costs orders do not automatically mean a lawyer is poor — anyone who regularly runs trials will lose some. But you are entitled to understand their track record and approach.

Litigation should be a strategy — not a reflex

Before starting proceedings, clients should ask themselves five questions:

1. What do I actually want? Money, an apology, a commercial outcome, a preserved relationship, a legal principle — and is it achievable?
2. What will it cost to achieve it? Not just legal fees, but experts, management time, disruption, and potential exposure to the other side’s costs.
3. How long am I prepared to live with this dispute? Six months? Two years? Longer?
4. What happens if I lose? And what if I win but recover substantially less than I spent?
5. Is there a negotiated outcome that’s good enough? “Good enough” is sometimes a better result than “perfect.”

The value of a good settlement

Settlement is sometimes treated as a sign of weakness. It is not. A negotiated settlement can provide certainty, stop legal costs escalating, protect confidentiality, preserve commercial relationships, and remove the risk of an adverse judgment. It also puts control back in the hands of the parties, rather than leaving the outcome to a judge.

That does not mean every case should settle. Some disputes need to be fought. But litigation should be a conscious decision, made with a clear understanding of the risks, costs and alternatives, and tied to a genuine dispute resolution strategy.

At O’Sullivan Sneddon Law, our job is not simply to beat the other side at trial. It is to help clients achieve the best available outcome — whether that means going to trial, fighting hard where necessary, or settling on sensible terms and moving on.

If you are involved in a dispute, the right question is not simply, “Can I win?” It is, “What is the best way to resolve this?”

If you have questions about litigation or developing a dispute resolution strategy, contact the O’Sullivan Sneddon Law Dispute Resolution team.

Dispute Resolution

The ATO and Fair Work Ombudsman have announced a joint crackdown on sham contracting, with investigations already underway in the construction and road transport sectors.

What is Sham Contracting?

Sham contracting occurs when a worker is labelled as an independent contractor when they are genuinely an employee – often to avoid paying super, leave and workers compensation entitlements.

Key Points

Here is what businesses need to know:

• It’s not enough to simply call someone a contractor. The substance of the arrangement matters.
• Penalties for sham contracting under the Fair Work Act can reach $495,000 (or three times the underpayment amount for larger businesses).
• Additional ATO charges may apply – including PAYG withholding penalties and the superannuation guarantee charge.
• Data matching through taxable payments annual reporting (TPAR) gives the ATO visibility over $507 billion in contractor payments annually.
• Nearly 1000 community tip offs are received every week.

A copy of the joint statement by the Fair Work Ombudsman and the ATO last Friday can be found here Sham contracting in the spotlight – Fair Work Ombudsman.

If you have any questions about sham contracting or need your contractual arrangements reviewed, please contact the O’Sullivan Sneddon Law employment law team.

Employment

Sometimes a person who is entitled to an inheritance decides they do not want it, or would prefer another family member to receive it, or would like to share the inheritance.

There are three common ways to achieve this:

1. “Disclaiming” an Inheritance

The person can “disclaim” their inheritance. If done properly, the law treats the beneficiary as though they predeceased the deceased and therefore were never entitled to the inheritance. The inheritance then passes to the next beneficiary in line under the terms of the will or the rules of intestacy (i.e. the rules that apply where there is no will).

This option is often the simplest but can have unintended consequences if the disclaiming beneficiary  did not intend the gift to pass to the next beneficiary in line under the will or the rules of intestacy.

2. “Assigning” an Inheritance

An “assignment” occurs where a beneficiary receives the inheritance but then “assigns” (i.e. transfers) their entitlement to someone else. For example, a beneficiary may decide to transfer their share of an estate to a spouse or child for asset protection reasons.  Because it is a transfer, it can in certain circumstances create tax, stamp duty and Centrelink issues.

3. Deed of Family Arrangement

A Deed of Family Arrangement is a formal agreement between the beneficiaries to change how an estate is to be divided.  Families often use these deeds to:

• avoid disputes;
• settle family provision claims brought against the estate;
• redistribute assets more fairly or differently; or
• achieve practical outcomes not provided for in the will.

Are there Stamp Duty, Tax and Centrelink Consequences?

When property passes from an estate to a beneficiary under a will or the intestacy rules, transfer duty (i.e. stamp duty) is often exempt.  However, if beneficiaries change who receives property through an “assignment” or “deed of family arrangement”, transfer duty may sometimes apply depending on the nature of the property.

In many cases, assets passing from a deceased estate to beneficiaries do not trigger immediate capital gains tax (CGT). However, “assigning” an inheritance can sometimes create CGT consequences. Some “deeds of family arrangement” may also affect tax outcomes.

People receiving Centrelink benefits should be particularly careful.  If a beneficiary gives away or redirects an inheritance, Centrelink may treat this as a gift or deprived asset. This can affect pension or benefit entitlements, even if the person never actually receives the inheritance.

The takeaway is simple: Disclaiming, assigning or redistributing an inheritance may seem straightforward, but each option can have important legal, tax, stamp duty and Centrelink consequences.

Before making any decision on redistributing your inheritance, get the right advice and contact the Wills and Estates team at O’Sullivan Sneddon Law 07 3741 0100.

Wills and Estates

We hear this explanation often.

A complaint is made about comments, jokes, messages or conduct in the workplace, and the response is: “It was only friendly banter.”

Similarly, an employer or manager might assume that a conversation behind closed doors was private and therefore could not amount to harassment.

That is not how the law approaches it.

In Queensland, sexual harassment in the workplace is not limited to physical conduct or overt propositions. It can include unwelcome comments, jokes, questions, gestures, messages or behaviour of a sexual nature where a reasonable person would have anticipated the possibility that the other person would be offended, humiliated or intimidated.

The fact that something was intended as a joke, said privately, or accepted as “workplace culture” does not necessarily make it acceptable — or lawful.

For employers, the key issue is not whether the person responsible thought it was harmless. The question is whether the conduct was unwelcome and whether its impact, viewed objectively, crossed the line.

Workplaces should be clear about expectations, respond promptly to complaints, and avoid dismissing conduct as “banter” without properly considering the legal and practical risks.

Sexual harassment laws are not about stopping ordinary workplace conversation. They are about ensuring people can work in an environment that is safe, respectful and free from unlawful conduct.

General information only — not legal advice.

Sexual Harassment Disputes

Australian business leaders face constant pressure to move faster and cut costs. Generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools seem like the perfect solution, offering instant document drafting and quick analysis.

However, relying on AI for complex commercial transactions is a high-stakes gamble. While AI is excellent for routine administrative tasks, using it without human oversight introduces major liabilities for businesses.

The Danger of AI-Generated Legal Summaries

A rising trend amongst businesses is the uploading of formal legal advice from solicitors into AI tools to get a “quick summary” in an effort to rapidly progress transactions or negotiations.

Although the temptation is understandable the practice is risky. Formal legal advice is carefully drafted, with every word chosen to reflect specific risks. When AI compresses this advice, it routinely strips away crucial qualifications, conditions, and liability limits. Relying on these simplified, automated summaries means businesses are making critical decisions based on incomplete information, which can expose decisions makers such as directors to claims of breaching their duty of care and diligence.

The Trap of Self-Representation and AI Contract Reviews

Many businesses are now attempting to negotiate commercial leases, share sales, and corporate deeds without legal representation, relying instead on AI to review the contracts.

This approach is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of legal risk. AI is trained to analyse the words on the page, but it cannot identify what is missing or draw on recent experience of similar matters. An experienced solicitor calls on their lived in experience to look for hidden liabilities, poorly worded clauses or missing provisions that have been left out to your disadvantage.

The Missing Ingredients: Context, Strategy, and Expertise

Legal practice is more than assembling documents and requires strategic thinking and commercial context. AI tools do not understand your business’s risk appetite, your relationship with the other party, or your long-term goals.

An experienced solicitor knows how to use your commercial leverage to secure better terms, when to compromise, and how to draft bespoke clauses that protect you and minimise your exposure. AI cannot negotiate, read the room, or formulate a tailored strategy to protect your directors from personal liability.

Protect Your Business

There is no substitute for the strategic foresight, deep context, and personal accountability of a qualified legal professional. Do not leave important business decisions to an algorithm. Contact the experienced team at O’Sullivan Sneddon Law today at to secure tailored legal advice, comprehensive contract reviews, and robust risk management strategies designed to safeguard your commercial success.

Commercial